ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Root canal irrigants and their role in the adhesion of pre-endodontic restorations.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the influence of root canal irrigating protocols on the micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) and endogenous enzymatic activity (MMPs) of pre-endodontic resin composite restorations at baseline and after artificial aging. MATERIALS AND
methodsDeep dentin surfaces from human molars (n = 16) were exposed and embedded in acrylic resin. A universal adhesive (iBond Universal, Kulzer) and resin composite (Venus Pearl, Kulzer) simulated pre-endodontic restorations. The following groups were formed according to the endodontic irrigating protocol (n = 20/group): C (no treatment); SH (5.25% NaOCl + water rinse); CHX (SH + 2% chlorhexidine rinse); EDTA (SH + EDTA rinse). Additional teeth (n = 3) were used for in situ zymography. µSBS and MMPs activity were assessed after 24 h or 10,000 thermocycles (5–55 °C, 30s). Data were statistically analyzed (p < 0.05).
resultsIrrigation, aging, and their interaction significantly influenced µSBS (p < 0.001). At baseline, EDTA showed the highest µSBS (p < 0.05), while C, SH, and CHX were statistically similar (p > 0.05). Thermocycling reduced µSBS in all groups, with no post-aging differences among irrigating protocols (p > 0.05). Enzymatic activity was affected by irrigation and aging. SH showed the highest MMPs activity while CHX the lowest (p < 0.05). No differences were observed between EDTA and C (p > 0.05).
conclusionsIrrigating solutions do not affect the adhesive bond strength of pre-endodontic resin composite restorations after aging. However, enzymatic activity increases after NaOCl, but is reduced when NaOCl is combined with EDTA or CHX. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinically, this supports preserving interproximal pre-endodontic resin composite walls for final restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40518492What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.